Rand Paul on immigration: Republicans have got to get beyond deportation

posted at 1:21 pm on April 1, 2014 by Allahpundit

Before anyone excommunicates him from the GOP on grounds of RINOism, ask yourself: Will there be a single Republican candidate onstage next year at the debates who challenges him on this point? Don’t say Cruz. Cruz opposes a path to citizenship but he’s in line with Paul, Rubio, etc, on legalization and work permits, which are the truly important provisions. Once legalization is granted, citizenship will inevitably follow. (That’s why it’s crucial to secure the border first, to make sure that this amnesty is the last amnesty.) If Paul’s candidacy is DOA for taking this line, I’m not sure whose candidacy is still alive.

During a symposium at the Newseum on conservative engagement with Hispanic media outlets, Paul also said Republicans have plenty of ideas that appeal to Latinos, but acknowledged, “We got to get beyond deportation to get to the rest of the issues.”

“The bottom line is that the Hispanic community, the Latino community, is not going to hear us until we get beyond that issue. They’re not going to care whether we go to the same church or have the same values or believe in the same kind of future of the country until we get beyond that. So showing up helps. But you got to show up and you got to say something and it’s has to be different than what we’ve been saying.”…

“I think one way to get the door ajar is say that you know, Mrs. Garcia’s nephew is not going to be sent home to Mexico,” he said. “You know, because everybody — even those who are here illegally — know somebody who is here who doesn’t have the proper visa.”…

Paul, who voted against last year’s Senate comprehensive immigration bill, expressed frustration that the bill still keeps it illegal for immigrants with certain visas to change jobs while in the United States. He gave an example of a migrant worker who came here with a legal visa to pick crops for $9 dollars an hour but later saw a construction job that paid $14 dollars an hour.

The most interesting part of that to me isn’t the deportation bit. After the beating Romney took for advocating attrition through enforcement, a.k.a. “self-deportation,” in 2012, no Republican with national ambitions is going to defend the D-word. The interesting part is that Rand is still kinda sorta pushing the “Latinos are conservatives but just don’t know it yet” line which, I thought, most people who follow politics now accepted was self-serving nonsense endorsed by GOP amnesty fans. More than one poll, including the national exit poll in 2012, show Latinos favoring gay marriage. Abortion is more complicated, but the same 2012 exit poll found that 66 percent of Latinos thought abortion should be legal compared to 59 percent of the overall population. Maybe that’s an artifact of higher turnout among Latino Democrats for Obama’s reelection bid or maybe it’s a more durable trend. As for Paul’s point about sharing a vision for the future of the country, here’s the reality from Pew circa April 2012:

A Gallup poll taken two months later, in June 2012, showed a similar result. When asked whether government is doing too much or not enough, American registered voters overall split 57/37. Latino registered voters split 35/56. And so we return to the big question: Are these preferences more a product of firm ideological inclination or are they more a product of alienation from the GOP over immigration policy? Republicans don’t need to win a majority of Latinos to make Democrats’ lives difficult electorally — even a 40/60 split would be tough for the left — but the “ask” here in terms of legalizing 10+ million people is high given the uncertainty. Look back at the Pew poll and you’ll find a further complication: It’s younger Latinos and recent immigrants who are the furthest left politically. Is that because they’re alienated from the GOP in a way that older generations, which watched Reagan sign the 1986 amnesty, aren’t? Or is it because broader political trends, like the leftward drift and lesser role of religion among younger voters generally, have delivered them there? The problem is more or less fixable depending upon how you answer. Republican candidates, Paul included, have to take the “it’s our fault” line because they can’t afford to formally write off an entire demographic. The trick is convincing Republican base voters that it’s true.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

I never said anything about them being fine or not fine. The Hispanics in New Mexico still underperform. But they’ve been here so long, and they have so few fresh recruits showing up in their state, that they’ve become somewhat immune from any political enthusiasms. Plus, they have a near-monopoly on political power in the state already.

You’re ignoring what I wrote. I said nothing about how they performed.

Many Hispanics in New Mexico never had an attachment to Mexico. They settled in what would become New Mexico too early and had too tenuous a connection to Mexico’s enthusiasms to become partisans in fights that would only later develop.

But the state of New Mexico scored fifty out of fifty in the recent NAEP vocabulary test for fourth graders, so that tells you all you need to know about the long-term Hispanic potential for catching up.

Pincher Martin on April 1, 2014 at 7:46 PM

So when the revolution starts then what is now the state of New Mexico is going to become an island of America surrounded by the territory Mexico reclaims & the United States just lets them have?

If “amnesty” means anything but a large-scale roundup and massive deportation effort then you’ve expanded the definition so much that it would make me a supporter. That’s the trouble with the same word getting bandied about for years to describe a plethora of different policy proposals.

alchemist19 on April 1, 2014 at 7:42 PM

You’re the one expanding what amnesty means. Amnesty means to forgive their crimes, and when one is an illegal alien that only happens one way. Make them legal. You’re trying to squirm your way out of admitting that, but you can’t.

Consider that one of the owners of Univision, Haim Saban, is a major Clinton donor and backer who told the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth that, “Seeing her in the White House is a big dream of mine.”

Owner of Univision not hispanic, In the top ten all time DEM donors

From Wikipedia,Haim Saban (Hebrew: חיים סבן‎; born 15 October 1944) is an Egyptian-born Israeli-American television and media proprietor.[2] With an estimated net worth of $3.4 billion, he is ranked by Forbes as the 144th richest person in America.[1]

In case you wondered how the Family channel mighty morphed into the GLBT family channel

On July 23, 2001, Saban announced that he and News Corporation would sell Fox Family Worldwide Inc for $5.3 billion to The Walt Disney Company.[15] and on October 24, 2001, the sale was completed[13] and the network was renamed ABC Family.[6] Saban profited about $1.6 billion from this sale.[6]

Funny no one ever hears of him.

Saban says his greatest concern is to protect Israel. At a conference in Israel, Saban described his formula. His three ways to influence American politics were: make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets.[22]

The scope of his spending is amazing.

During the 2000 presidential election, Saban increased his rank to 5th among individual donors with a combined contribution of $1,250,500.[23] Matthew Yglesias wrote that “Saban was the largest overall contributor to the Democratic National Committee during the 2001–2002 cycle.” [25] Saban’s donations during that 2001–2002 period exceeded $10 million, the largest donation the DNC has received from a single source up to that time.

No one hears about this guy, but he is like a Jewish Soros the way he uses money to buy influence. Wait, he is Jewish too. what is reality anymore?

Your point is that you are an unapologetic bigot who can provide no data to refute what the Conservative Heritage Foundation concludes.

MJBrutus on April 1, 2014 at 6:13 PM

The Heritage Foundation does address my question to you. The criteria does not fit my criteria. That said, using their guidlines, the majority of the top 12 are white Christian, are they not?
If you actually believe that Hong Kong and Singapore and Estonia and Chile are more free and respecting of human rights than Sweden the U.K. Finland, Germany or the Netherlands…well, you seem to like to prefer what you’re told rather than the world of observable reality.

Theres a study ranking Cuba ahead of the U.S for quality of healthcare. Do you believe that too?

It’s not the nature of the evidence, it’s the seriousness of the charge?

If you’re making a prediction about events in the long run – i.e., what budget deficits will do to U.S. finances, what demographic change will do to U.S. political elections, etc. – then there is no definitive evidence for anything. You look at trends and try to make sense of them. Any small mistake can throw your prediction off and make it completely meaningless.

But the trends in this case ought to be telling you that nationalism and multiculturalism don’t go together.

Then don’t use the word “Reconquista” to describe a southwestern independence movement. If you can’t keep your terms straight then that’s your issue, not mine.

Relax. It’s just shorthand.

Does it really matter in the end what it’s called? The Hawaiian sovereignty movement has had several different names over the years. In the end it still boils down to separation, and that’s all any American ought to concern himself with.

You’ll find no bigger opponent of populism than me and I’ve spent enough time educating myself about Chavez to understand how he became and remained popular. But does this at least mean you’re conceding that you’re beliefs about Hispanics are internally inconsistent?

I don’t know how many times or how many ways a person can say the same thing, but really… I WILL NEVER VOTE AGAIN FOR A PRO-AMNESTY REPUBLICAN.

They needn’t bother playing word games with it either because I’m just not that stupid. If a Republican cannot demonstrate a working knowledge of The Rule of Law, he’s not worthy of the name, and I really don’t give a rat’s hind leg about what other issues he might be conservative on. This is not a “single issue”. It’s THE issue… the one that changes the political dynamic of this country for all time. And I’m not having it.

If I’m not provided with a candidate I can vote for, I’m not showing up. Good luck with that, GOP. Maybe the polls are wrong and there really are enough small government latinos to make it work. I kind of doubt it though.

You’re the one expanding what amnesty means. Amnesty means to forgive their crimes, and when one is an illegal alien that only happens one way. Make them legal. You’re trying to squirm your way out of admitting that, but you can’t.

DFCtomm on April 1, 2014 at 7:50 PM

I’m not squirming away from that at all. If that’s your definition of amnesty then yes I can support it. If the definition of amnesty also includes citizenship then I’ll oppose. That’s the position I’ve staked out and I’ll defend it unless and until I’m shown there’s a better position to stand on. It’s certainly better than panicking about Reconquista boogeymen while crying about people who want to come here and keep on sucking up all our welfare. I’m at least consistent, and that’s a decent enough start.

It’s certainly better than panicking about Reconquista boogeymen while crying about people who want to come here and keep on sucking up all our welfare. I’m at least consistent, and that’s a decent enough start.

alchemist19 on April 1, 2014 at 8:07 PM

This is circular, so I’m done, but you can keep squirming all you like. However, in the end we’ll all pay the price for your decision. Remember that, I will.

If you’re making a prediction about events in the long run – i.e., what budget deficits will do to U.S. finances, what demographic change will do to U.S. political elections, etc. – then there is no definitive evidence for anything. You look at trends and try to make sense of them. Any small mistake can throw your prediction off and make it completely meaningless.

But the trends in this case ought to be telling you that nationalism and multiculturalism don’t go together.

Seriousness of the charge then. Got it.

Relax. It’s just shorthand.

Does it really matter in the end what it’s called? The Hawaiian sovereignty movement has had several different names over the years. In the end it still boils down to separation, and that’s all any American ought to concern himself with.

Yes it matters because “Reconquista” is specifically Mexican. But even that doesn’t weasel you totally out of the cognitive dissonance involved with simultaneously believing Hispanics are coming here to break off part of America – regardless of whether or not the broken off part because a part of Mexico – while also believe they want to mooch off the government. Those two are incompatible.

Beats me. But the movement does have plans for the state. Who knows if the Hispanic residents living in New Mexico will shake off their lethargy and become active in a larger Hispanic movement originating outside their state.

Pincher Martin on April 1, 2014 at 8:00 PM

Because the a fringe separatist group mentions New Mexico on their website then it becomes a realistic possibility New Mexico will join in the Great Imaginary Revolt? o_O

What’s inconsistent about “enforce the law?” I can’t argue a point that stems from a false premise.

gryphon202 on April 1, 2014 at 8:09 PM

My reference to inconsistency was directed at people who simultaneously believe illegals come here to enjoy government benefits while wanting their new homes to break away from the federal government. I’ll maybe buy one if I’m presented with good evidence but not both (free advice: go with the former because so far what I’ve seen for evidence of the latter has been incredibly weak).

My reference to inconsistency was directed at people who simultaneously believe illegals come here to enjoy government benefits while wanting their new homes to break away from the federal government. I’ll maybe buy one if I’m presented with good evidence but not both (free advice: go with the former because so far what I’ve seen for evidence of the latter has been incredibly weak).

Correct. But the fact it’s not happening as far as anyone can reasonably demonstrate goes a long way to showing it’s not true though.

alchemist19 on April 1, 2014 at 8:26 PM

I think the council of la raza demonstrates it to my satisfaction. But that is of little consequence to me in the scheme of things. I have no obligation whatsoever to non-citizens, and that tack is as consistent as you will ever find me being. Enforce the law, seal the borders as necesary to achieve that end, and allow people to follow the law we have established to green cards and naturalization. It’s just that simple.

I don’t need to explain to anyone, citizen or not, why I am in favor of an exercise of national sovereignty. It is the most axiomatic of existential questions. All this guilt trip bullshit is completely lost on me.

I don’t know how many times or how many ways a person can say the same thing, but really… I WILL NEVER VOTE AGAIN FOR A PRO-AMNESTY REPUBLICAN.

They needn’t bother playing word games with it either because I’m just not that stupid. If a Republican cannot demonstrate a working knowledge of The Rule of Law, he’s not worthy of the name, and I really don’t give a rat’s hind leg about what other issues he might be conservative on. This is not a “single issue”. It’s THE issue… the one that changes the political dynamic of this country for all time. And I’m not having it.

If I’m not provided with a candidate I can vote for, I’m not showing up. Good luck with that, GOP. Maybe the polls are wrong and there really are enough small government latinos to make it work. I kind of doubt it though.

Murf76 on April 1, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Bravo, Murf76!!!

Your comment accurately represents the outrage of MILLIONS of American Voters who want our government to ENFORCE OUR LAWS!

God save us from fools wrapped in their cocoon of Murica, who can’t believe anything of historic magnitude will ever happen.

DFCtomm on April 1, 2014 at 8:18 PM

I can easily believe something of historic magnitude will happen, I just don’t believe wild paranoid fantasies that don’t have a shred of evidence to support them. The Great Imaginary Revolt is so stupid, it’s such a target-rich environment that I honestly have a hard time figuring out what to shoot at first. There’s the lack of popular support. There’s the assimilation that happens a few generations in that dissolves later generations ties with their ancestor’s homelands. There’s the fact the US isn’t just going to let a bunch of states walk away no matter how much popular support there is for it in those places. Not only that, SCOTUS has declared secession illegal so the government is obligated to go get those states back if they did try anything (see: Texas v. White). There’s the fact Mexico doesn’t want to tick off the nuclear power next door. It’s just so… STUPID! Yet here you are warning us about it as if it’s a realistic enough possibility to warrant concern. I’ll file this on my concern list somewhere between “meteor strike” and “unicorn invasion”. I suggest you do the same.

Yes it matters because “Reconquista” is specifically Mexican. But even that doesn’t weasel you totally out of the cognitive dissonance involved with simultaneously believing Hispanics are coming here to break off part of America – regardless of whether or not the broken off part because a part of Mexico – while also believe they want to mooch off the government. Those two are incompatible.

No, they’re not.

There is no cognitive dissonance in explaining that a movement’s goals can and do change.

There is also no cognitive distance in explaining that a group of people who do better when they immigrate to the U.S. can have purely fanciful reasons why their fortunes improve. They might not associate it with the economic innovation of American whites or the political freedom found here. They can just as easily associate it with the land that was stolen from them. They can say amongst themselves, “If only the Americans hadn’t stolen our land, then we too would be rich today.”

Because the a fringe separatist group mentions New Mexico on their website then it becomes a realistic possibility New Mexico will join in the Great Imaginary Revolt? o_O

Didn’t I just tell you that I didn’t know if New Mexico’s Hispanic population joining in the separatist game was realistic or not? Of course I did. “Beats me,” were my exact words.

Is that because they’re alienated from the GOP in a way that older generations, which watched Reagan sign the 1986 amnesty, aren’t?

You mean that older generation that continued to vote for democrats in bigger numbers after watching Reagan sign the 1986 amnesty?

My reference to inconsistency was directed at people who simultaneously believe illegals come here to enjoy government benefits while wanting their new homes to break away from the federal government.

alchemist19

Says the guy who earlier said he believes we should legalize them, give them visas, and let them stay here and eventually get green cards, but we shouldn’t reward them because of all the people who are trying to do it the right way, lol.

My reference to inconsistency was directed at people who simultaneously believe illegals come here to enjoy government benefits while wanting their new homes to break away from the federal government. I’ll maybe buy one if I’m presented with good evidence but not both (free advice: go with the former because so far what I’ve seen for evidence of the latter has been incredibly weak).

What Alchemist19 doesn’t understand is that large groups of people can hold contradictory views about a lot of important things, and they do so all the time.

Immigrants can associate moving to the U.S. with a better life, for example, and still not understand how changing the political system might hurt their long-term fortunes.

A lot of people – not all of them foreigners – associate America’s wealth with the physical richness of its land. They don’t associate U.S. wealth with the political system (which they think is, and always has been, evil) or the people living here.

They think the European settlers came to a largely empty continent in which the vast majority of Native Americans died off from diseases and the remaining few were shuttled off to unproductive land reserves. They then think America robbed the rest of the world by military conquest or unfair bargains. This is a particularly common view in Latin America.

So to these people there is no contradiction between coming here to enjoy prosperity and not seeing that prosperity as having anything to do with the system in place or the people already here.

They’re the one group in history who wants to willing give up their benefits? Okay.

If you understand this then maybe you can sort through a couple issues. Is the Reconquista an organized plan that brings in only illegal Mexicans who are sympathetic to the cause? If so, who’s in charge? Why are they allowing non-Mexican Hispanics into the country who would be more likely to oppose joining Mexico? When does the Great Imaginary Revolt begin? What’s the purpose of it? Are they reconquistaing El Norte for the heck of it or do they have some goal in mind? I’ve got more but I want to get those answered first.

I think the council of la raza demonstrates it to my satisfaction. But that is of little consequence to me in the scheme of things. I have no obligation whatsoever to non-citizens, and that tack is as consistent as you will ever find me being. Enforce the law, seal the borders as necesary to achieve that end, and allow people to follow the law we have established to green cards and naturalization. It’s just that simple.

gryphon202 on April 1, 2014 at 8:33 PM

La Raza has publicly repudiated any and all nationalist movements and the Reconquista specifically, have they not? Even if they haven’t they still don’t speak for every person of Hispanic descent in the country today.

Says the guy who earlier said he believes we should legalize them, give them visas, and let them stay here and eventually get green cards, but we shouldn’t reward them because of all the people who are trying to do it the right way, lol.

xblade on April 1, 2014 at 8:49 PM

I said we shouldn’t reward them with full citizenship and the political power that comes with it. You know the difference between a visa, a green card and naturalized citizenship, right?

Rand you need to get beyond sucking up to people who have and continue to break our laws. Rand you have to get beyond these people because they feel about this country the way Owe-bama does . . . they just want a bunch of FreeBees and care nothing about what made this country great. They don’t care about being a part of this country, they want this country to be just like the trash and cesspool they came from. They are not smart enough to see what coming to this country means.

La Raza has publicly repudiated any and all nationalist movements and the Reconquista specifically, have they not? Even if they haven’t they still don’t speak for every person of Hispanic descent in the country today.

alchemist19 on April 1, 2014 at 9:02 PM

It’s like believing that the Palestinian Authority is interested in peace with Israel. They say one thing for international consumption, and another to their own people. So it is with La Raza, too. And whether they speak for all Hispanics or not is immaterial to their goals anyway. Whether or not a particular individual or family believes in reconquista, their presence here as illegals helps those that do. And you’d better believe that La Raza knows it.

What Alchemist19 doesn’t understand is that large groups of people can hold contradictory views about a lot of important things, and they do so all the time.

You, for example…

Immigrants can associate moving to the U.S. with a better life, for example, and still not understand how changing the political system might hurt their long-term fortunes.

You’re accusing them in favor of wanting to stay here while returning to the place they left. Your position defies common sense.

A lot of people – not all of them foreigners – associate America’s wealth with the physical richness of its land. They don’t associate U.S. wealth with the political system (which they think is, and always has been, evil) or the people living here.

Right. Those big buildings were there just waiting for us to move into them!

They think the European settlers came to a largely empty continent in which the vast majority of Native Americans died off from diseases and the remaining few were shuttled off to unproductive land reserves. They then think America robbed the rest of the world by military conquest or unfair bargains. This is a particularly common view in Latin America.

You know this how?

This oughta be good….

So to these people there is no contradiction between coming here to enjoy prosperity and not seeing that prosperity as having anything to do with the system in place or the people already here.

I said we shouldn’t reward them with full citizenship and the political power that comes with it. You know the difference between a visa, a green card and naturalized citizenship, right?
alchemist19 on April 1, 2014 at 9:04 PM

Once they are legalized, the push will be, “why are you so racist and keeping these Latino Americans in second-class status? Equality for immigrants!” Whether citizenship comes immediately or after a few years, the eventual effect would be the same.

It’s like believing that the Palestinian Authority is interested in peace with Israel. They say one thing for international consumption, and another to their own people. So it is with La Raza, too. And whether they speak for all Hispanics or not is immaterial to their goals anyway. Whether or not a particular individual or family believes in reconquista, their presence here as illegals helps those that do. And you’d better believe that La Raza knows it.

gryphon202 on April 1, 2014 at 9:09 PM

Examples, please.

And if there’s ever going to really be a Great Imaginary Revolt then the illegals who are here had better support it. You’re talking a minority view of largely economically downscale people going up against the United States military on our own turf. They’re going to need all the help they can get.

Once they are legalized, the push will be, “why are you so racist and keeping these Latino Americans in second-class status? Equality for immigrants!” Whether citizenship comes immediately or after a few years, the eventual effect would be the same.

And if there’s ever going to really be a Great Imaginary Revolt then the illegals who are here had better support it. You’re talking a minority view of largely economically downscale people going up against the United States military on our own turf. They’re going to need all the help they can get.

alchemist19 on April 1, 2014 at 9:14 PM

Do you think we should not enforce the law as it is because reconquista is not a threat? Is that why we need to make it easier for them to come here?

Reconquista is happening. It happens every time a Mexican uses Matricular Consular cards to sign up for benefits without having paid a single penny in taxes. It happens every time they get paid under the table and send the money back home without paying a single penny of taxes on it. It happens every time they register to vote using those same Matricula Consular.

Jeebus, are you really that thick? These people do not wish us well. They may be hostile, they may be indifferent, but it makes little difference to me. Enforce the law. That’s all I want, and all your blather is distraction. I refuse to engage any further an argument based on false premises.

Once they are legalized, the push will be, “why are you so racist and keeping these Latino Americans in second-class status? Equality for immigrants!” Whether citizenship comes immediately or after a few years, the eventual effect would be the same.

Right. Those big buildings were there just waiting for us to move into them!

Are you a complete idiot? Must I inform you about everything? Some people pay good money for the lessons I’m providing to you.

A common way of explaining current material differences between the U.S. and the developing world is to claim the U.S. is simply taking full advantage of its historical good fortune (i.e., land) and historical crimes (i.e., slavery, genocide, etc.), just as some academic Marxists liked to claim that colonies made Western Europe rich.

There’s no economic evidence for these arguments, of course, but that doesn’t mean people can’t believe them.

Once they are legalized, the push will be, “why are you so racist and keeping these Latino Americans in second-class status? Equality for immigrants!” Whether citizenship comes immediately or after a few years, the eventual effect would be the same.

bluegill on April 1, 2014 at 9:13 PM

It would be a separate issue that would stand or fall on its own, plus it would give us a few years to see if border security (which must come first) is actually working.

I am utterly resentful that we have to hear this word “deportation”. It is as totally worthless to stopping the illegals as that moronic wall. I want employer sanctions. Employer sanctions! EMPLOYER SANCTIONS! It’s what would work. $500,000 fine per illegal combined with people who turn in the employer getting $50,000 bounty, and this entire issue would just go away–as the illegals self-deport. I am even generous enough to give them financial assistance to leave.

Do you think we should not enforce the law as it is because reconquista is not a threat? Is that why we need to make it easier for them to come here?

Reconquista shouldn’t be a factor in anything because it’s largely a myth, as far as anyone can show.

Reconquista is happening. It happens every time a Mexican uses Matricular Consular cards to sign up for benefits without having paid a single penny in taxes. It happens every time they get paid under the table and send the money back home without paying a single penny of taxes on it. It happens every time they register to vote using those same Matricula Consular.

That’s not what Reconquista is. Something can be bad, or even inexcusable, without being “Reconquista”.

Jeebus, are you really that thick? These people do not wish us well. They may be hostile, they may be indifferent, but it makes little difference to me. Enforce the law. That’s all I want, and all your blather is distraction. I refuse to engage any further an argument based on false premises.

gryphon202 on April 1, 2014 at 9:23 PM

You don’t even understand your own premise so it’s not too surprising that mine goes over your head.

So to these people there is no contradiction between coming here to enjoy prosperity and not seeing that prosperity as having anything to do with the system in place or the people already here.

Pincher Martin on April 1, 2014 at 8:55 PM

Absolutely right. A lot of people outside of the U.S think that we are prosperous because we appropriate the wealth of others. It’s dumb as hell but it’s how they think. The irony(I hope I use that right) ,in this case, is that Mexico is a very resource rich country who suffer only because of their own corruption and lawlessness. If they were doing it right then they’d be a very wealthy nation. We don’t owe them a thing and they have plenty to work with.

The more immediate and stronger argument against mass immigration is not that a Mexican or Hispanic revolt is imminent, but that large scale immigration is not good for America. It’s not good in the short term or the long term, and it’s particularly bad for a political party which still claims to want smaller government.

Alchemist19 avoids these strong arguments because he knows he can’t counter the evidence in their favor. Instead, he’d rather focus on an argument which he correctly sees as less likely to happen.

I don’t know how many times or how many ways a person can say the same thing, but really… I WILL NEVER VOTE AGAIN FOR A PRO-AMNESTY REPUBLICAN.

They needn’t bother playing word games with it either because I’m just not that stupid. If a Republican cannot demonstrate a working knowledge of The Rule of Law, he’s not worthy of the name, and I really don’t give a rat’s hind leg about what other issues he might be conservative on. This is not a “single issue”. It’s THE issue… the one that changes the political dynamic of this country for all time. And I’m not having it.

If I’m not provided with a candidate I can vote for, I’m not showing up. Good luck with that, GOP. Maybe the polls are wrong and there really are enough small government latinos to make it work. I kind of doubt it though.

Murf76 on April 1, 2014 at 8:06 PM

The problem here is, IT DOESN’T MATTER THAT YOU OPPOSE THIS. The Socialists have more than succeeded in marginalizing pro-enforcement conservatives that they cannot realistically win an election again. The GOPe is in on this scam and have rigged the system.

If a GOPer starts espousing anything amnesty-related, he will lose to a pro-amnesty Democrat. So in effect, the Dems will win anyway regardless of what your objectives are. They win. You and I lose.

Absolutely right. A lot of people outside of the U.S think that we are prosperous because we appropriate the wealth of others. It’s dumb as hell but it’s how they think. The irony(I hope I use that right) ,in this case, is that Mexico is a very resource rich country who suffer only because of their own corruption and lawlessness. If they were doing it right then they’d be a very wealthy nation. We don’t owe them a thing and they have plenty to work with.

I don’t have to know it. All I have to know is that it’s not logically inconsistent, which is what you’re accusing me (and others) of.

If you’re saying illegals want to simultaneously be part of the US (for benefits) and not part of the US (Reconquista) then that’s inconsistent. Period.

If you’re feeling ambitious, and up to the task of informing yourself about subjects which you like to talk about so much but know so little, then read History Lessons: How Textbooks from Around the World Portray U.S. History

That ought to get you up to speed.

You cited a 400 page textbook in toto. Narrow it down a bit.

Are you a complete idiot? Must I inform you about everything? Some people pay good money for the lessons I’m providing to you.

From you? I think they’re doing it for laughs.

A common way of explaining current material differences between the U.S. and the developing world is to claim the U.S. is simply taking full advantage of its historical good fortune (i.e., land) and historical crimes (i.e., slavery, genocide, etc.), just as some academic Marxists liked to claim that colonies made Western Europe rich.

There’s no economic evidence for these arguments, of course, but that doesn’t mean people can’t believe them.

Pincher Martin on April 1, 2014 at 9:29 PM

You seem to be something of an expert on believing things with no evidence so I will take you at your word on that. But do you have any specific supporting evidence that shows there really is a super secret but not so secret conspiracy to infiltrate the US for the express purpose of having states that were formerly in Mexico secede and rejoin that nation?

And you never took a stab at how the US government will respond to all that. I would actually like to be there when someone from the Mexican government walks up to the gate at Camp Pendleton and informs them that they’re on Mexican soil. That’s ending poorly for someone and it ain’t the United States Marine Corps.

The more immediate and stronger argument against mass immigration is not that a Mexican or Hispanic revolt is imminent, but that large scale immigration is not good for America. It’s not good in the short term or the long term, and it’s particularly bad for a political party which still claims to want smaller government.

Alchemist19 avoids these strong arguments because he knows he can’t counter the evidence in their favor. Instead, he’d rather focus on an argument which he correctly sees as less likely to happen.

Pincher Martin on April 1, 2014 at 9:35 PM

If we’re moving away from absurdities like the Reconquista myth into serious issues then I’m more than ready.

Real knowledge is hard. I can’t dumb it down for you any more. Read the book.

You provided a link to Amazon for a 400 page textbook and suggested I read it, knowing that I most likely would not be able to complete that task until after this thread is long gone. From what I got from the description contains a number of unrelated topics, like what German texts say about World War II and what British texts say about the American Revolution. None of that is germane to this discussion. Which, if any, parts of the book are relevant to the topic at hand? You did not narrow that down to a specific page or pages, as is customary when citing a long reference in support of an argument. It appears that if one of us doesn’t know what you said it’s you and not me.

I’ve cited more evidence and sources and hyperlinks than anyone in this thread. I did this even though not responsible for educating you. Do some of your own homework.

Pincher Martin on April 1, 2014 at 9:43 PM

Granted I may have missed something but the only citations I’ve seen from anyone in this thread are you linking a purchase page for an entire book and someone else linking to the Christian Science Monitor for a somewhat one-sided and incomplete picture of Eisenhower’s crackdown on illegal immigration back in the 50s. What did I miss?

Granted I may have missed something but the only citations I’ve seen from anyone in this thread are you linking a purchase page for an entire book and someone else linking to the Christian Science Monitor for a somewhat one-sided and incomplete picture of Eisenhower’s crackdown on illegal immigration back in the 50s. What did I miss?

Several things. I linked to a page on the book Generations of Exclusion written by two UCLA sociologists. I linked to a page showing the Jewish-American voting record in U.S. presidential elections dating back to 1916. I’ve linked to other things as well.

What have you linked to? Not a damn thing.

You’re not that smart, man. Believe me. You’re not going to be able to bluff your way through this discussion.

Once they are legalized, the push will be, “why are you so racist and keeping these Latino Americans in second-class status? Equality for immigrants!” Whether citizenship comes immediately or after a few years, the eventual effect would be the same.
bluegill on April 1, 2014 at 9:13 PM

It would be a separate issue that would stand or fall on its own, plus it would give us a few years to see if border security (which must come first) is actually working.
alchemist19 on April 1, 2014 at 9:30 PM

Nope, it’s the same issue. Promising legalization but no immediate citizenship is just a ploy to try to get conservative voters to go along with amnesty. It’s the same strategy used in these deceptive ads targeting conservatives.

And here’s a Zuckerberg-funded, fake “conservative” ad that tries to trick voters into thinking the Republican sellout amnesty proposal is what was needed to “get tough” on illegals:
VIDEO: http://youtu.be/l9XRF_kqIN4

And we all have seen how the Court can change the Voting Rights Act and already how proof of citizenship is not even required in all states for voting.

The solution is no more complicated than enforcing the law now.

Legalizing millions of illegal aliens through mass amnesty, as Rand Paul advocates, will only encourage and lead to even more illegal aliens. It’s not like we haven’t seen this situation play out before.

Stopping the granting of citizenship to millions of former illegal aliens would be a much more difficult political argument to make. The “no citizenship” plank would collapse 2 seconds after the amnesty law was passed.

Alchemist, why are you dead set against enforcing the law? Why are you so interested in seeing the country flushed down the toilet and the Democrat Party eventually getting tens of millions of new voters?

Perhaps my mind has been clouded by the number of people being really stuck on really stupid claims that I just missed the good arguments.

As a debater, I think you’re just naturally attracted to the low-hanging fruit. I can’t blame you. Everyone needs to find their own level.

Is the good argument that large-scale immigration isn’t good for the US? Is the good argument related to GOP electoral prospects for the future? Is it something else? Come on, what’s your best shot?

There’s no single “best shot.” The strength of the overall argument is in the accumulation of all the evidence which favors restriction.

1) Hispanic Americans have a poor long-term track record in education and career achievements. Whatever the cause, there’s no reason to believe that will change. Underperforming demographics generally want and need more government services.

2) Hispanic Americans like big government. They like everything about it, from health care to gun control. There’s widespread polling evidence that Hispanics are in the Democratic party because they like what the party provides, not because they are scared away from Republicans by anti-immigrant rhetoric.

3) All immigrants, because they are outsiders to the core American experience, have always supported the Democratic Party, all the way back to Boss Tweed. The Democratic Party is the party for outsiders, from gay men to single mothers to Jews to almost all immigrant groups. Invite in more outsiders and you get more Democrats.

If you’re a Republican and you like small government conservatism, you need to be for immigration restrictionism. That means both sending illegals home and cutting back on the levels for legal immigration.

Your dodge was less clever than you seem to think it was, and you’re not going to distract me from my original point. How do you know that it is a common view in Latin America that America robbed the world via military conquest and unfair bargains?

Several things. I linked to a page on the book Generations of Exclusion written by two UCLA sociologists. I linked to a page showing the Jewish-American voting record in U.S. presidential elections dating back to 1916. I’ve linked to other things as well.

What does the Jewish-American voting record have to do with anything?

What have you linked to? Not a damn thing.

I’ve not been asked to. Is there an assertion I’ve made which you would like to see some supporting evidence for?

You’re not that smart, man. Believe me. You’re not going to be able to bluff your way through this discussion.

Pincher Martin on April 1, 2014 at 10:02 PM

What does it say about you if a not-that-smart person like myself can run rings around you like I’ve been doing to you since the thread started?

The RINO punditry elite just loves to throw the whole “writing off a whole demographic” nonsense at conservatives who oppose amnesty.If Latino voters don’t like us because we stand for the rule of law do you really think we would ever get their votes to begin with.No,we won’t.For every Hispanic voter you entice with amnesty you will lose 10 base voters who stand against giving anything but a ride home to people who invaded this country,sucked the life out of every social service our citizens pay for,and refused to learn our language,which is still English for you multi-cultural morons out there.Rand Paul’s persistent “evolving” on every issue his political opportunist radar picks up is becoming quite telling.Paul isn’t a RINO-he’s a CINO,a conservative in name only,and only when it suits his political ambitions.He is the libertarian version of Lindsey Graham.

Your dodge was less clever than you seem to think it was, and you’re not going to distract me from my original point. How do you know that it is a common view in Latin America that America robbed the world via military conquest and unfair bargains?

There was nothing “clever” about what I told you. Many academics throughout Latin America are still attracted to Marxist interpretations of history. The region was once a hotbed of Marxist thought. Those habits of thought don’t die that quickly. Old books don’t immediately fall off the shelves.

What does the Jewish-American voting record have to do with anything?

Someone was making the claim that Asian immigrants, who are a lot more successful than Hispanic immigrants, might be able to counter them at the polls. In other words, invite in more Asian immigrants and Republicans will have a better chance of overcoming the Democrats and their Hispanic allies.

I cited the Jewish-American experience to show that career and education success didn’t necessarily translate to conservatism.

I’ve not been asked to. Is there an assertion I’ve made which you would like to see some supporting evidence for?

You’re not making direct assertions, only implicit ones. You’re not smart, but you’re smart enough to know you shouldn’t say anything you can’t prove.

What does it say about you if a not-that-smart person like myself can run rings around you like I’ve been doing to you since the thread started?

You can believe any deluded thing you want, but you don’t get to play the objective judge to your own success here.

I lived and worked in East Asia for over a decade. I speak Mandarin and read Chinese. I have a Taiwanese wife who is now an American citizen.

Everything you say about Chinese immigrants is true, but large-scale, mass immigration from China would still be awful for America and would further dilute America’s great political culture. For one thing, although the Chinese aren’t content to be mediocre, their social habits and social trust are extremely low. Sure, they won’t fill our jails, but they won’t fit in as well as you believe. They’re more family oriented than the nineteenth-century Germans were, and even today many of the immigrants from China are of questionable quality – short-order cooks and the like.

Dilute our culture in what way? California is already a cultural debacle, how can the Chinese make it any worse. That cultural debacle was mostly started by a bunch white hippy lift wingers in the 1960s. The Germans of the 19th century were peasants for the most part coming from various semi-feudal German states (later basically unified into basically “Greater Prussia”), some of which were extremely militaristic. Not exactly a good start if we assumed they wanted to keep in America what they had left in Europe. However, many came to America to escape that, and the same goes for many of the Chinese who come to America today.

But they’re not going to fit in. The nineteenth-century Germans immigrated to a country which still had the confidence to demand they assimilate. And when that lack of assimilation was viewed as potentially dangerous in WWI, laws were changed to make sure German-Americans got with the program.

So your historical parallel is too simple. It doesn’t look at the huge differences between the America of today and the America up to the early twentieth century., as well as the differences between China and nineteenth-century Germany.

The Americans of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had the right idea: Less immigration. Focus on the needs of the people living here right now.

There’s no trick needed. Just lower immigration levels.

I don’t fit in now in California! Most of the potential Chinese immigrants will end up in California at first at least so that is where they will make an impact and I think for the good. That is unless you would rather have California more like Mexico?

There was nothing “clever” about what I told you. Many academics throughout Latin America are still attracted to Marxist interpretations of history. The region was once a hotbed of Marxist thought. Those habits of thought don’t die that quickly. Old books don’t immediately fall off the shelves.

Let’s suppose for a moment that this is true. Are those Marxist academics the ones scurrying across the border today?

Someone was making the claim that Asian immigrants, who are a lot more successful than Hispanic immigrants, might be able to counter them at the polls. In other words, invite in more Asian immigrants and Republicans will have a better chance of overcoming the Democrats and their Hispanic allies.

I cited the Jewish-American experience to show that career and education success didn’t necessarily translate to conservatism.

Didn’t read that particular discussion. Jews tend to be highly educated though and very high levels of education are more often associated with liberalism.

You’re not making direct assertions, only implicit ones. You’re not smart, but you’re smart enough to know you shouldn’t say anything you can’t prove.

Even if only the bolded part is true is it means I’m still way better than most.

You can believe any deluded thing you want, but you don’t get to play the objective judge to your own success here.

As a debater, I think you’re just naturally attracted to the low-hanging fruit. I can’t blame you. Everyone needs to find their own level.

Well when all the fruit is hanging on the bottom branches and there’s nothing higher up I don’t have a lot of options. For all your complaining about my picking low-hanging fruit you would think you wouldn’t be the one giving it to me but you did.

1) Hispanic Americans have a poor long-term track record in education and career achievements.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume this is true. The same can be said about Rural Americans. The same could be said of Scottish immigrants during the colonial era. That’s never guided our policy in the past. And I’ve said border security is paramount through this entire thread, have I not?

2) Hispanic Americans like big government.

So? I don’t advocate letting illegals vote or giving them citizenship. They can like it all they want but I at least haven’t said we should enfranchise them so if we’re taking my advice then they can’t vote for it.

3) All immigrants, because they are outsiders to the core American experience, have always supported the Democratic Party,

Again, part of the solution I advocated was as our desire not to reward bad behavior, people here illegally should not be allowed to become citizens and vote in our elections. So even if this is true it’s an argument that’s directed at the wrong guy.

If you’d like to try again then feel free to but I would ask you put the fruit up a bit higher. You’re making this too easy for me.

Most Chinese immigrants will not stay in California. They certainly don’t now. Nevada and Colorado’s Asian populations, for example, have both more than doubled in the last twenty years. Yes, they started from extremely low levels, but the point is that they still grew fast and there’s no reason to believe that trend won’t continue if immigration isn’t slowed down considerably.

So why will they stay in California in the future? If the Pacific Ocean couldn’t keep them out of California, the Mojave Desert, Sierra Nevada, and southern Cascades certainly won’t keep them out of the rest of the U.S.

As for what I meant by diluting our culture, the Chinese are not small government conservatives. While they often come from nations or polities where elites have created low-tax, low-regulation economic environments, the voters themselves, when given the choice, show they share many progressive goals.

The Germans in the nineteenth century were very different. The German states had the finest universities in the world during the nineteenth century. Many Americans went to Germany for their higher education in that century.

Until Bismarck, the Germans came from a strong political tradition of decentralization, federalism, and freedom. Even after Bismarck’s creation of the strong central state, many political traditions in Germany remained decentralized.

The gap between the Germans and Americans in the nineteenth century was much smaller than the gap between the Chinese and Americans today.

I don’t fit in now in California! Most of the potential Chinese immigrants will end up in California at first at least so that is where they will make an impact and I think for the good. That is unless you would rather have California more like Mexico?

Let’s suppose for a moment that this is true. Are those Marxist academics the ones scurrying across the border today?

They don’t have to. They play much the same role as opinion-makers in Latin America that our academics and media play in the U.S. As long as the audience is tuning in to them, they have influence, even if they’re still in their home countries

Didn’t read that particular discussion. Jews tend to be highly educated though and very high levels of education are more often associated with liberalism.

Asians don’t have high levels of education?

Besides, having more education up through a college degree does tend to predict how you’ll vote, with more education meaning you’ll vote for the GOP.

Voters with college degrees in 2012, for example, voted for Romney over Obama 54-44. Voters with “some college” gave Obama a slight nod with 49-48. And voters with just a high school education voted for Obama 51-48.

(Voters with postgraduate degrees voted overwhelmingly for Obama, but they were also the smallest slice of the electorate defined by education.)

For the sake of argument, let’s assume this is true. The same can be said about Rural Americans. The same could be said of Scottish immigrants during the colonial era. That’s never guided our policy in the past.

What do you mean, never guided our policy in the past?

We certainly weren’t shy about using immigration policy to keep groups out that we didn’t think fit in with American traditions. The entire period from the Know Nothings of the mid-nineteenth century to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was dominated by that assumption.

That’s a century of discussion about immigration policy that was guided by the notion that Americans had not only the right, but the duty, to keep out groups who didn’t fit in with our traditions.

So? I don’t advocate letting illegals vote or giving them citizenship. They can like it all they want but I at least haven’t said we should enfranchise them so if we’re taking my advice then they can’t vote for it.

If you welcome them here in any way, then their kids will still become Americans and still suck up resources and still vote Democratic. You’ll only delay the inevitable.

There’s the assimilation that happens a few generations in that dissolves later generations ties with their ancestor’s homelands.

alchemist19 on April 1, 2014 at 8:43 PM

This is the same stupid crap that got us nation buiding in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how did that turn out? Just because we get lucky once or twice we think we can keep pulling that trick over and over again. Why don’t you go try that with Russian roulette.

They don’t have to. They play much the same role as opinion-makers in Latin America that our academics and media play in the U.S. As long as the audience is tuning in to them, they have influence, even if they’re still in their home countries

But again, if you’re talking about the way people can vote in US elections following my suggestion then it won’t be those illegals who might have been influenced by Latin American Marxist academics coming here and influencing elections.

Asians don’t have high levels of education?

Now we’re talking about Asians? Can we finish the discussion on Jews before we veer into a new subject?

Besides, having more education up through a college degree does tend to predict how you’ll vote, with more education meaning you’ll vote for the GOP.

Voters with college degrees in 2012, for example, voted for Romney over Obama 54-44. Voters with “some college” gave Obama a slight nod with 49-48. And voters with just a high school education voted for Obama 51-48.

(Voters with postgraduate degrees voted overwhelmingly for Obama, but they were also the smallest slice of the electorate defined by education.)

Post-grads was what I had in mind but it occurred to me after I’d posted that a better indicator than education might be urbanization. Urban voters are more likely to vote liberal and rural voters are more likely to vote conservative and Jews tend to be heavily urban.

What do you mean, never guided our policy in the past?

We certainly weren’t shy about using immigration policy to keep groups out that we didn’t think fit in with American traditions. The entire period from the Know Nothings of the mid-nineteenth century to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was dominated by that assumption.

That’s a century of discussion about immigration policy that was guided by the notion that Americans had not only the right, but the duty, to keep out groups who didn’t fit in with our traditions.

Are you referring to what was supposed to kept-well-beyond-its-shelf-life Emergency Quota Act?

If you welcome them here in any way, then their kids will still become Americans and still suck up resources and still vote Democratic. You’ll only delay the inevitable.

Pincher Martin on April 2, 2014 at 12:45 AM

This same thing could have been said at one time about Catholics. Groups never change their preference, do they?

This is the same stupid crap that got us nation buiding in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how did that turn out? Just because we get lucky once or twice we think we can keep pulling that trick over and over again. Why don’t you go try that with Russian roulette.

DFCtomm on April 2, 2014 at 1:24 AM

Nation building? What in the blue blazes are you talking about? Iraq was a made-up country where people were still in their ancestral homelands. We were talking about the descendants of people who’ve left their ancestral home behind for a new life in America. If an illegal immigrant from Mexico gives birth here and that child who grows up in America, who doesn’t know anyone in Mexico, who has never been to Mexico, and who has no personal ties to Mexico isn’t likely to suddenly want Arizona to become part of Mexico after their parents went to great lengths and took a great risk to get out of Mexico. Later if that child grows up and has kids of their own then there’s even less of an attachment to the old country. Those kids are the ones who assimilate into American culture. It just takes a while.

And it’s an insult to the great work America has done nation building in the past to even sort of suggest we’re not good at it. We engaged in nation building in Germany and Japan not all that long ago and they seemed to turn out alright. Japan was a 100% American effort that we didn’t even let the British participate in and they place seem okay now.

And who in their right mind would choose to live in such third world hellholes? (unless they are missionaries or humanitarian workers) The fondest dream of people in such places is to get to the US, so maybe – just perhaps – they aren’t quite the Heaven On Earth Nirvana MJB believes them to be.

whatcat on April 1, 2014 at 6:18 PM

I lived in Singapore for a decade and have visited Hong Kong a number of times. If you seriously believe that either of these places counts as a “third world hellhole” then you have no idea what you’re talking about. Both city-states compare favorably (in terms of general infrastructure and resources) to pretty much anywhere in the United States. Singapore has a higher per capita GDP than the US. While I definitely have strong reservations about Singapore’s political system, there is no way any informed person would describe it as either “third world” or a “hellhole”.

But again, if you’re talking about the way people can vote in US elections following my suggestion then it won’t be those illegals who might have been influenced by Latin American Marxist academics coming here and influencing elections.

You’re conflating two separate arguments. The Reconquista argument (#1), which I’m not wedded to, but which I believe deserves more respect than you’re giving it. And the Hispanics-are-natural-Democrats argument (#2), which is a much more obvious and immediate threat to Republican fortunes.

My comment about residual Marxist thought in Latin America was a leftover remark from our previous discussion and has a lot more to do with #1 than #2. Most Hispanics are obviously not Marxists, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be influenced by the intellectual culture they came from, even if they never went to school.

But putting aide the Reconquista argument, nowhere in Latin America do we find a strong constituency of libertarian thinking. That’s an Anglo political preoccupation – and it is shrinking even there. Most people who come from Latin America – even those who identify as conservative – are quite comfortable with the notion of a strong state that helps them throughout their lives in education, welfare, health, and retirement.

Now we’re talking about Asians? Can we finish the discussion on Jews before we veer into a new subject?

The only reason I mentioned Jewish-Americans is because they are an example of a successful immigrant group which have been in the United States for a long time and has assimilated in every possible way, but which Republicans still can’t win over. In fact, if Republicans weren’t already such strong supporters of Israel, I suspect that many Republicans would argue that we have to support the Jewish state in order to win the Jewish vote – in much the same way that they argue, without evidence, that we need to be soft on immigration to win the Hispanic vote.

In both cases, those Republicans assume that some issue must be of such critical importance to the group in questions that members of it will reward the party at the polls that leans their direction. But just as supporting Israel has won the GOP no converts among the Jews, so amnesty will win the GOP no converts among Hispanic voters.

Post-grads was what I had in mind but it occurred to me after I’d posted that a better indicator than education might be urbanization. Urban voters are more likely to vote liberal and rural voters are more likely to vote conservative and Jews tend to be heavily urban.

But Jewish voting patterns are not fully explained by either education or urbanization. Jews are a strong outlier and always have been, and the best explanation for it is cultural – they simply don’t identify with other whites and are quite comfortable with a large and liberal state.

The closest the GOP presidential candidate has ever come to winning the Jewish vote after WW2 was in the 1980 race when Ronald Reagan won 39 percent of the Jewish vote to Carter’s 45 percent. (The remainder probably went for third-party candidate John Anderson.)

Most Americans thought Reagan’s first term was successful and gave him a ringing endorsement by increasing his share of the overall popular vote from 51 percent in 1980 to 59 percent in 1984.

Did the Jewish voters see things the same way?

Not even close. Reagan’s share of the Jewish vote dropped eight points in those four years, while Mondale’s share of the Jewish vote went up twenty-two points over Carter’s share in 1980. How do you explain that?

Education and urbanization certainly can’t explain it.

By the way, Reagan’s share of the Hispanic vote also went down in those four years. Apparently Reagan did something in that time that neither Jewish nor Hispanic voters liked.

This same thing could have been said at one time about Catholics. Groups never change their preference, do they?

Yes, after a century of support for the Democratic Party, white Catholics began to shift their partisan voting patterns.

Do we have a century to wait for Hispanic voters? Should we start telling conservatives to not worry because Hispanics are sure to be a true swing vote in the presidential election of 2100?

Good luck with that argument.

******

It’s also necessary to understand why white Catholics started changed parties when they did. It had little to do with what Republicans were doing. Many Catholics hated the turn the Democratic Party took in the sixties and seventies. They didn’t mind big government, but they disliked the sexual revolution and the pacifism of the Democratic Party. So some of them began to migrate to the GOP with the more socially conservative and the more vociferously anti-Communist of Catholics leading the way.

Even so, white Catholics have only recently become a part of the Republican base, and the Catholic vote as a whole (including Hispanics) has still voted for the Democratic candidate in the last seven presidential contests, according to Gallup.

We were talking about the descendants of people who’ve left their ancestral home behind for a new life in America. If an illegal immigrant from Mexico gives birth here and that child who grows up in America, who doesn’t know anyone in Mexico, who has never been to Mexico, and who has no personal ties to Mexico isn’t likely to suddenly want Arizona to become part of Mexico after their parents went to great lengths and took a great risk to get out of Mexico. Later if that child grows up and has kids of their own then there’s even less of an attachment to the old country. Those kids are the ones who assimilate into American culture. It just takes a while.

And it’s an insult to the great work America has done nation building in the past to even sort of suggest we’re not good at it. We engaged in nation building in Germany and Japan not all that long ago and they seemed to turn out alright. Japan was a 100% American effort that we didn’t even let the British participate in and they place seem okay now.

But what you don’t appear to understand is that the U.S. success at nation-building is proportionate to the underlying qualities of the people we are overseeing.

The Japanese, Koreans, and Germans are inherently successful people. The Germans and Japanese were so successful, in fact, that they built huge empires which were a major threat to our national security. So it didn’t take much effort on our part to steer their abundant national energies in a more productive direction.

But we’ve also led nation-building efforts in Haiti (twice), Nicaragua, the Philippines, Cuba (three times), Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, the Dominican Republic (twice), South Vietnam, and Iraq. How many of those were successful?

And it’s an insult to the great work America has done nation building in the past to even sort of suggest we’re not good at it. We engaged in nation building in Germany and Japan not all that long ago and they seemed to turn out alright. Japan was a 100% American effort that we didn’t even let the British participate in and they place seem okay now.

alchemist19 on April 2, 2014 at 2:00 AM

I think your delusional and may actually believe that unicorns only exist in Murica, but I’ll play your silly little game. Lets assume that we successfully nation built because we were good at it, and we have assimilated bunches of Europeans because we were good at it and not because we got damn lucky. What does it take to do those two things.

You must believe your culture, society and way of life are correct, and in the case of nation building you have to be prepared to force that way of life upon another group of people at the point of a gun. We can’t and won’t do that anymore. Moral relativism keeps us from saying our culture is better, and we damn sure aren’t prepared to force people to live as we live. We just aren’t that nation anymore. That’s why Iraq and Afghanistan were failures, and why we will not assimilate large groups of immigrants anymore. They will assimilate us. Hell, they already are. They now print one side of cracker boxes with Spanish.

And it’s an insult to the great work America has done nation building in the past to even sort of suggest we’re not good at it. We engaged in nation building in Germany and Japan not all that long ago and they seemed to turn out alright. Japan was a 100% American effort that we didn’t even let the British participate in and they place seem okay now.

I think the way we kneecap this ridiculous argument for immigration reform we do this: present Mexico’s immigration laws and replace the words ‘America’ for ‘Mexico’ and ‘American’ for ‘Mexican’ and watch the fireworks begin while Mexico explains why immigrants have restrictions on property rights and civil rights

Better? How? By not enforcing our laws? By giving away scarce employment opportunities to people here illegally or who are working for peanuts on H1B visas and driving our wages down? How is that better and for who?

It is undoubtedly necessary to communicate to voters with roots in Latin America that the Republican party is, as Paul put it, not “just the party of deportation.” It would certainly be beneficial to “get beyond deportation to get to the rest of the issues” that conservatives care about.

Unfortunately, it appears that Paul didn’t simply mean that the GOP must expand its message beyond talk of deportations. Rather, it shouldn’t support deportations at all: “I think one way to get the door ajar is say that you know, Mrs. Garcia’s nephew is not going to be sent home to Mexico.” This would be in sync with the Obama administration’s policy of releasing hundreds of thousands of illegals aliens who had been arrested, or even convicted, for crimes. In fact, the administration is under pressure to halt deportations altogether, as Paul here seems to suggest. This has been promoted as the #Not1More campaign.

Paul also repeated, contrary to all evidence, the fairy tale that “Maybe half, maybe 60 percent” of Hispanics are conservative.

Krikorian then demolishes Paul’s stupid argument that 40 percent of illegal aliens “somehow lost their documentation.”

I think the only way restrictionists win this argument in the long run is by simply telling the GOP that we won’t support the party under any political leadership until it begins to close the Golden Door.

Better? How? By not enforcing our laws? By giving away scarce employment opportunities to people here illegally or who are working for peanuts on H1B visas and driving our wages down? How is that better and for who?

magicbeans on April 2, 2014 at 10:25 AM

These two believe in some magical assimilation unicorn, that if it ever existed, is now long extinct. They think a chant of Murica will ward off all evil.

Mrs. Garcia’s nephew is not going to be sent home to Mexico” because “everybody, even those who are here legally, know somebody who is here who doesn’t have the proper visa.”

So Rand Paul, like Barack Obama, wants the United States of America to be a nation of men, not laws. As far as I am concerned Rand Paul, like Marco Rubio before him, just had his McCain moment

“somebody who is here who doesn’t have the proper visa.”

“Doesn’t have the proper visa”, like it’s a mere technicality only. So maybe I should just withdraw $100,000 from one of Rand Paul’s bank accounts and then expect no complaint from him for not having the proper withdrawal form. Yes, that should work.